Open Source Government - The software program that will run the world (The Mind of Gaia Project )

I was thinking about how to develop a system of world government that was not capable of being corrupted, and worked for the benefit and health of the planet as a whole..

One of the significant factors of what makes a government corruptible is that there is no transparency in how it operates or who is operating it.

Maybe, that should be the first sign of corruption - that a government is trying to hide from you its internal workings, who exactly is operating it, and for what reasons.

The idea of Open Source came to mind.

In software development, Open Source is a development model where the Source Code is available for viewing to the general public.

From Wiki - "Generally, open source refers to a computer program in which the source code is available to the general public for use and/or modification from its original design. Open-source code is typically created as a collaborative effort in which programmers improve upon the code and share the changes within the community. Open source sprouted in the technological community as a response to proprietary software owned by corporations."

---

So if we applied this idea to developing a software program that will operate and govern our Earth - then it can be characterized by the following:

1 - The open source for this program should be viewable by the general public, or by elected officials (elected within the program) on a regular basis.

2 - The operation of the program should include - forum discussion and debate to propose agendas. The agendas should come out of forum discussion and debate on the ultimate purpose of humanity, or worthy objectives for humanity (or of all life on the Earth,i.e. Earth as a whole system).

3 - People of influence can be elected out of qualifications which can be available for all people to view (something like an online bio or resume), as opposed to our current system which is highly influenced by cronyism and financial contribution.

The people of influence, depending on their category of expertise, can determine the structure of the program, through public debate, as well as take part in proposing and approving agendas.

People can gain influence similar to something like how people receive stars or flags on this site to express their approval for someone.

4 - The general public, i.e. individuals, can post their own resources and skills that they are willing to contribute to worthy, proposed agendas and objectives.

---

Of course I haven't worked out the details..

I welcome anyone to add their own ideas on how this can work.

---

But I think the great benefit of such a system would be that -

1. It will be a transparent government - since anyone (or elected individuals) can view the source code on a regular basis to make sure it is not corrupted.

2. Forums, debates, and agendas/objectives for humanity - will be available for all to view and witness, or to take part in through some voting system.

3. People who run for election, or for positions of influence, can be evaluated based on actual qualification and worthiness, since their bios and resumes will be available for all to see. Since forums, debates, and agendas/objectives for humanity will take place online, elected people of influence can be much more numerous, numbering in the thousands. Elected people of influence can have varying degrees of influence based on worldwide approval ratings.

---

Anyway, these are some of the ideas I came up with.


The objective is to develop an uncorruptible software program that will run the world.

It can even run concurrently with current government, while being developed, and eventually take over due to worldwide public approval.

It can fund agendas by the system I mentioned - where individuals list finances, resources and/or skills they are willing to contribute to any particular proposed agenda and thus gain autonomy within the current existing government.


I welcome anyone to add to, or criticize these ideas.

reply to post by nOraKat


Seems like a good idea, I have thought about similar concepts because with the governments we have at the moment are producing unsatisfactory results.

I could probably write a thesis on this topic, but to keep it simple the biggest problem is money. With an accepted culture of privacy in terms of accounts, getting access to funds is a key principle for all sources of political power. Bitcoin is one economic forum that has broken the mold in terms of open source money, but talking open source to your local bank or government treasury department does not achieve a lot.

In some ways it is all of the internet that is contributing to a gradual and more open standard of political communication. While the tv and general media ignored the occupy wall street movement, there was a larger political voice with the social and growing alternative media based online. The power of online communications in terms of politics is one trend that is continuing to grow. There still maybe corrupt laws passed, but they are getting more attention more quickly.

Government is a big complicated messy thing with many different local and regional issues, as such there will be many different components, situations and solutions to help make the most of the various government needs and directions. To help identify and focus where gaps in the system are review your local, state, national and international government online services.

Also, trying to leverage different professional bodies and the resources they can contribute to informed decision making can help find a better answer.

nOraKat
a software program that will operate and govern our Earth

Skynet? bad idea

reply to post by nOraKat


If you can convince one country to run with this idea in 2014, then I get a successful 2014 prediction!! (I forget where that thread is...)

reply to post by Indigent


Open Source Earth (Government) will be run by people.

Only - elections, forums/debates, and objectives, etc. will be delegated through the regularly verified software. No AI will be implemented.

I know your jk.

Interesting topic. I have been mulling over this concept recently as well.

There is already a game changer in place with respect to governing. The Internet has the potential to allow every single individual on the planet to voice their opinion. That same channel allows them to vote directly, without the need for group representation. In other words, a global direct democracy.

There are still lots of technical hurdles to making this a reality. However, the difficulties are not insurmountable. It will take a long time to put the infrastructure in place. So, those of us who are over 40 will probably not see it.

It's interesting to note that there are young people now graduating from college and in business that never knew a time that the Internet didn't exist. There has always been a computer of some sort available to them. The Cold War is something they read about in their history classes. They have a completely different view of socializing and interacting as a group. They view the Earth differently than those who are currently in control of government.

As this "computer generation" gains more power and influence in government, the populace will demand to have more direct input to how government is conducted. I predict that individuals will be participating in the process in ways that we can't even conceive of now.


Dex

I believe what you are refering to is called "communism". It all sounds wonderful, but I don't like what the organ warmers in the government are telling me now, what makes you think I won't feel the same way about HAL 9000 running the show? and you refered to a computer program that was not susceptible to corruption. You have heard of hackers have you not? How about, we just don't have ANY government, and see how that works (WE're about 98% there anyway! Or maybewe could do tribes! that seemed to work out pretty well until somebody went and invented "government' in the first place !

What about people who don't have computers and/or refuse to use them?

Which population are you going to subjugate to provide the labor necessary to produce the infrastructure required for such a system (to speak nothing of that required for the production of the computers in the first place)? Computers don't grow on trees and people don't willingly spend their lives in holes mining raw materials.

The idea sounds nice, but unfortunately you're leaving out massive portions of the population who, either by circumstance or by choice, can't or won't participate. Are you going to force them to accept your techodemocracy?

reply to post by NthOther

NthOther
What about people who don't have computers and/or refuse to use them?

Which population are you going to subjugate to provide the labor necessary to produce the infrastructure required for such a system (to speak nothing of that required for the production of the computers in the first place)? Computers don't grow on trees and people don't willingly spend their lives in holes mining raw materials.

The idea sounds nice, but unfortunately you're leaving out massive portions of the population who, either by circumstance or by choice, can't or won't participate. Are you going to force them to accept your techodemocracy?

Well, I guess from my perspective, I don't see our system of commerce or economy changing appreciably from what is currently in place. So, I don't necessarily see a need for a slave population. Primarily this thought experiment concerns how to improve our system of governance.

The infrastructure that I mentioned is already expanding at an exponential rate. Also, as the current generations die off, the newer generations will be more accustomed to using computers. Even now, in 1st world nations, most activities relating to our interface with society can be accomplished online.

There is also ample evidence that many 3rd world populations are gaining access to computers and the Internet. A single dedicated computer, satellite connected to the Internet, could accommodate an entire rural community.

As for a choice in participating in this techodemocracy, the populace already has that option. In fact, outside of the US, in most nations where voting is allowed, there is considerable participation in the democratic process. Otherwise the citizenry is subject to the whims and ideology of the rest of the voting public.

Finally, I think that communities like ATS are already pioneering the transition to an online participatory/direct democracy. While the electoral process has a long way to go before voting can be done online, places like this provide a forum where a diverse group of people can come together to discuss and debate issues that are pertinent to society. I know that I personally have gained a great deal of insight into issues that I previously knew nothing about. I have also been "schooled" a few times about issues of which I thought I had a good understanding.

Nowadays I have taken to referring to members of ATS as citizens.

Just my humble opinion.


Dex

We should be looking at how we want the world to be first rather than fixing how it is. Do we really want leaders deciding, or do we want the equal rights, or more rights to the righteous. The west has to decide if they want equality gap narrowed or if how they want future achievers rewarded based on the implications not wishful thinking.

Do we want leaders to have imaginable power or do we want every one to have less opportunity. Do we want everyone having equal rights globally or do we want leaders / wise men dictating what they see best.

Once we know what we want then we have to see if and how to do it.

Start simple: is future equality preferred over future opportunity for some, if so define equality acceptable. If not then decide on what you would do with a possible uprising from the poor etc etc.